Talk:Peripheral nerve interface

Peer Review 1
1. Quality of Information: 1 Does not have up-to-date references.

2. Article size: 0 Only contains 5000 bytes, way less than what the expected range should be for this project.

3. Readability: 1 It was very hard to follow what this actually is. The jargon used is not applicable to the general audience of wikipedia.

4. Refs:0 There are only 3 references for this article. Two out of the three are over 10 years old. The most recent one is from 2005.

5. Links: 0.5 There are only a few words linked to other wiki pages, and none to pages that need to be created.

6. Responsive to comments: 0 There was no initial talk page for this. I just created it.

7. Formatting:1.5 There are a few typos and grammar issues that need to be addressed

8. Writing: 1 The research does not take a stance one way or another on the topic, however it is only based on three references, so it is heavily biased towards that research from many years ago. Very difficult for the average wiki user to read and understand.

9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2

10. Outstanding?: 0 There is nothing about this article that stood out. The research was minimal and the description of the information is not ideal according to the guidelines of this assignment.

_______________

Total:   7  out of 20

Lisa M Johnson (talk) 18:54, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

---

Peer Review 2
1. Quality of Information: 1 Comment: Some factual information. Does not have at least 3 up-to-date references from previous 3 years

2. Article size: 0 Comment: Does not meet 15,000 requirement

3. Readability: 1 Comments: Some readability. Not all terms are defined however. Needs more work in this are.

4. Refs: 0 Comment: Does not have at least 10 references. Other three references do not meed wiki guidelines. 5. Links: 1 Comment: Some links to other wiki pages but NO red links

6. Responsive to comments: 2

7. Formatting: 1 Comments: Follows basic formatting guidelines; table of contents, headers etc. But is missing the course banner on the talk page

8. Writing: 1 Comments: Some grammatical mistakes but overall this area is OKAY. Still need a lot more writing in subtopics.

9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2

10. Outstanding?: 0 Comments: Nothing outstanding about this article. Still needs a lot of work with more detail and references. Would still consider this page a 'stub' at this point.

__________________________

Total:      9 out of 20

Jacob Johnson (talk) 04:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Peer Review 3
1. Quality of Information: 1 There is some information, but the article is not complete. Left me feeling uniformed on the topic.

2. Article size: 0 Does not meet size requirements.

3. Readability: 0.5 Wording is not for the lay person and is very hard to follow. Important terms are not explained consistently.

4. Refs: 0.5 There are only 3 references, 2 of which are outdated.

5. Links: 1 There are a few links, but there should be more to connect the article to other Wiki pages.

6. Responsive to comments: 2

7. Formatting: 1 Some backbones for structure but the number of headings may be excessive or overambitious for an article that is supposed to be a max of 25Kb.

8. Writing: 1 Some grammatical issues. Somewhat verifiable and neutral, but due to the low number of references, possibility that there is bias.w

9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2

10. Outstanding?: 0 This article does not even meet basic requirements and still needs a considerable amount of content.

_______________

Total:  9   out of 20

Adrienne.m.jones (talk) 14:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)